"If we sound an uncertain trumpet..."

Today's guest blogger is Richard Rothermel, a long-time friend of Creation Moments and an avid creationist who teaches biblical creation to the members of his church through a column in the church's newsletter.

Some faithful Christians greet the biblical creation message with puzzled silence. Why do we have to talk about that? Of COURSE God created everything! Doesn’t everyone know that? Don’t we confess in the Apostle’s Creed every Sunday, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth”? Well, we’re not so sure about the six day stuff. And maybe Adam and Eve weren’t real people; and a talking snake?! Well, you know, it’s symbolic. And Noah’s Flood? Well, maybe that was just a local flood; that’s what the scientists say. It’s not important anyway. Shouldn’t we be focused on spreading the Gospel; on taking care of the sick and the needy?

Perhaps we need to be reminded more often that biblical creation is foundational to all other ministries, including those which minister to the needy and afflicted in Christ’s name, and those which spread the Gospel. We need to be reminded that once we leave the Sanctuary, we and our families are confronted on all sides with opposition (or indifference) to God’s Word. Our opponents are powerful, and they are well-placed – in education, media, entertainment, and popular culture – to undermine our faith in God’s Word.

In place of God’s truth, they offer “science,” and the false religion of evolution. We must ask ourselves, are we ready to give a reason for the hope that we have, as the Apostle Peter urged? What will we say when people – our children! – tell us, “Science has proved the Bible isn’t true”? If we “sound an uncertain trumpet,” who will listen? Christ and the Apostles often went back to Genesis. Should we not be prepared to do the same, with full confidence in the truth of God’s Word?

Comments

Submitted by Kenneth Holley (not verified) on Thu, 2011-11-17 11:21.

This is from Ravi Zacharias' website. His 'A Slice of Infinity' column.

The 'War' Between Science and Religion

If you ask many people today what they think about science's relationship to religion, you are likely to be told that the two have been in conflict for a very long time.(1) There was the trial of Galileo by the Inquisition, for example, the debate between Wilberforce and Huxley, and there is still an on-going dispute over the teaching of evolution in American schools. These usual suspects may be trotted out whenever this topic is mentioned, but are events such as these really typical of the history of science as a whole?

Contrary to the impression given by some commentators, the conflict thesis between science and religion is one that has been discredited in academic circles for some time. The rise of science in the West was, of course, a very complicated affair in which many different factors played a part. There were certainly inevitable points of tension, but this does detract from the fact that Europe was a largely Christian continent in which religious individuals and institutions inevitably played a central role in the changes that occurred.

A number of the popular misconceptions about history are addressed in Ronald Numbers' book, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion.(2) One of the most famous examples is the "debate" between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and T. H. Huxley (1860), which was actually an after-lecture discussion on the merits of Darwin's work. The alleged clash was largely forgotten about until the 1890s, when it resurrected by those seeking to attack the power of the Anglican orthodoxy. By this point the scientific community had become more professionalized and some of its members realized the debate could be used to promote their already growing autonomy. The event was therefore portrayed as if it had been a portentous victory for science over religion, even though, at the time, neither side was said to have won and the discussion was held on purely scientific grounds.(3)

It is important, therefore, to be aware of how history is sometimes portrayed. Scholars no longer use the term "dark ages," for example, because the description gives the false impression that this was a period of ignorance during which little development occurred. Rodney Stark suggests that there is a similar problem with the process known as the Enlightenment, because the term itself, coined by Voltaire, was appropriated by various militant atheists and humanists who sought to claim the credit for the rise of science. As Stark points out, "The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by such self-appointed cheerleaders as Voltaire and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise."(4) This depiction of the Enlightenment, as if it was some kind of clean secular break from the past, persists today, but, as John Coffey points out, it could be more accurately described as a religious process. This is because many of those at the vanguard of the movement were Protestants (though certainly not all orthodox) who sought to fuse religious and philosophical ideas together. This is not to deny the role of certain groups of atheist thinkers, but crucially these were not representative of the Enlightenment as a whole. Furthermore, Dominic Erdozain argues that you can trace a lot of the unbelief of the time back to expressly religious roots. It was a Christian conscience (rather than a secular or pagan one) that drove much of the Enlightenment thought and a poignant example of this was the way in which Voltaire often used Jesus—albeit his own interpretation of him—in order to attack the church.(5)

It is always helpful, therefore, to bear in mind John Hedley Brookes' comments, when he reminds us that: "In many of the disputes that have been conventionally analyzed in terms of some notional relation between science and religion, the underlying issues were principally about neither science nor religion, nor the relationship between them, but were matters of social, ethical or political concern in which the authority of either science, religion or both was invoked (often on both sides) to defend a view held on other grounds..."(6)

As this suggests, simplistic ways of understanding history honor neither history nor the present.

Simon Wenham is research coordinator for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Europe.

Submitted by Maggi (not verified) on Thu, 2011-11-17 18:27.

We had excellent pastors and teachers in our long lives; who's teaching our collective grandchildren? TV, movie stars, singers, and secular teachers! Keep it up, Rich, and all the others that make a clear trumpet sound!

Submitted by Harry Moore (not verified) on Thu, 2011-11-17 21:09.

I wrote a poem to help folks (young and old) to understand the six days of Creation.

In the beginning, God made the world.
He just hung it in space, and gave it a whirl.
There was no sun, but there was plenty of light,
because the glory of the Lord was shining real bright.
And the earth was turning, so that made day and night.

That was day one, but God wasn't through,
so He got started on day number two,
when He made the beautiful sky of blue,
with a special cover over the earth.

Then He got going on day number three,
when He made dry land, plants, and fruit trees.
And God saw that everything was good.

But plants need a special kind of light to grow,
and that can't wait too long, you know,
so on day four, He made the sun, and the moon and stars.

God made animals that live in the seas,
and He made birds that live in the trees.
That was day five, and everything was good.

On day six, He made dinosaurs,
and other animals that live outdoors,
like cattle, and little creepy things.
Some crawled around, but others had wings.

He did a lot of work, but He wasn't finished.
He made man in His own image.
Then, He rested on the next day, number seven.

In just six days, He put it all together,
but some people say, "Well, whatever!".
Because they don't really believe that it happened that way.

So, I'm praying that they will come to the Lord,
trust in Him, and in His Holy Word,
and live the rest of their lives glorifying and honoring our
amazing, wonderful, and matchless Creator!

copyright, Harry Moore, 2011

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 10:57.

Thank you sir for the reminder.... everyday should be lived as fulling as to Christ.

Submitted by Mountain Saint (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 11:24.

I agree with you that God made everything (Genesis 1:1 and John 1:3). He also made the earth perfect and to be inhabited by man (Ezekiel 28:13). Something happened by Genesis 1:2 and the earth and its cities were covered with water, in a frozen state, and lifeless (Jeremiah 4:23-26). The Genesis 1:2 flood that killed the pre-Adam man occurred more than six thousand years ago and maybe on the order of millions of years ago. We don't know. Do you realize how stupid you look by claiming the earth is only six thousand years old?

Submitted by Mountain Saint (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 11:59.

I am sorry. The verse about the earth being made to be inhabited by man is Isaiah 45:18, not Ezekiel 28:13.

Submitted by Tom Brown (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 12:32.

Richard's comments are well taken! Yea and amen. The 70% of our high school graduates who have been brought up in the church, but leave as soon as they start making their own decisions, leave because our public schools have been indoctrinating them since third grade. Contrary to the 1st Amendment, we do have a national religion, enforced by law; that being Secular Humanism/Evolution.

My own experience, as a high school through graduate school instructor, is that there is an extremely biased attitude towards all Christians among most of the school administrators in this country. And they do not allow open debate on the issue. Just one of my experiences serves to uncover the naked truth of their bias: I once asked the Dean of Instruction to set up a public debate. He agreed to try. A week later he approached me and said that "regrettably" he was not able to find a qualified debater for the evolution side who was willing to take part in a public debate!

T. Steven, Washington State.

Submitted by John Langdon (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 12:46.

Every piece of “evidence” produced by evolutionists amounts to inventive thinking on their part. I have not been able to find any provable facts from any evolutionist concerning the creation of man and/or our world or space itself. I do not have a PHD in Geology or Biology, or any of the other “ologies” for that matter. However, I do have two very good eyes and a fantastic brain given to me by my Lord. In reality, the true evidence supports creation, not evolution.

Evolutionists speak of a “geologic column” which is touted to show the gradual evolution from simple life forms to the more complex forms over millions of years. This “column” is, in my opinion, nothing more than a made-up chart filled with nice pictures and lots of long words. Oh! The “geologic column” has never been proven scientifically, by the way. When viewing this “column”, one sees that the simplest life forms are placed at the bottom of the chart because they represent fossils which have been found in the deepest strata and I suppose this much is true, but then the fabrications start. The deepest strata is presumed to be the oldest strata; however, there are fossilized trees which can be seen vertically placed in several different strata?! Now I wonder how this occurred. (One may wish to look at the Mt. St. Helens’ blow-up of several years ago to see what happens to thousands of trees which are uprooted by a violent pyroclastic flow. Literally hundreds of the trees wound up in Spirit Lake, floating in a vertical position and covered in layers of mud and debris.] Food for thought…

Why do the “oldest” forms of life appear, now and again, in strata that are considered newer in their formation i.e., separated by millions of years? Something as violent of the flood recorded in the Book of Genesis could have easily created every rock formation known to man.

Check out the Grand Canyon. Look at the strata which are exposed. A common ordinary person can see these layers happened quickly. You know, if a cow died and fell to the ground on an open field and for some reason or the other no one set foot on that field for a million years, there would be no trace that the cow was ever there. Scavengers would have made short work of the carcass and the bones in a few short weeks to months.

Oh! One more thing, then I’ll shut up. How about the fossilization of modern clothing, cloth dolls and other “soft things” which occurred in just a few years? Please check out the attached links as I’m sure the information provided will whet the seeking person’s appetite.

Enjoy this site and your emphasis on the uniqueness of creatures that could only result from a creation event by a Supreme Being I know as the God of the Bible. My over 50 years in Medicine made it clear that the human is a very complex, finely tuned organism that could not have evolved from slime but is marvelously designed and created above all mammals.

Realizing that over 300 belief systems are in existence made it clear to me that this is the result of what Jesus warned us about i.e. the "Doctrines of Men", resulting in diverse interpretations of the Scriptures. If there is One God and One Truth, where would I find that Truth, certainly not in the writings of men ergo my quest in retirement to read the original manuscripts in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek.

My study of the manuscripts, particularly the first six chapters of Genesis, leads me to disagree with your dating of this planet and attributing all other beliefs regarding timing to the evolutionists, of which I am definitely not one. Genesis 1:1 ends with a period. The word "beginning" is best interpreted as "eons of time" and makes me see no conflict with science claiming millions of years as the date of this planet. It was during these eons that God and all those creatures we find in the fossil record existed together without flesh man. Believing God did not create something "void", we find verse 2 saying "was without form", but in Hebrew, "became tohu {Heb} Now he "restored" this planet to its current state and added "flesh man" beginning the 6000+ history into which many want to place our entire history. { Need more space! }

Submitted by Nelson Haas (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 13:26.

The idea of a local flood is absurd. If this were true, God could have had the animals migrate to an area outside the flood area. The same for Noah and his family. Jesus confirmed the flood in Matthew 24:37-39. Peter also confirmed the flood and the fact that mankind is willingly ignorant of this fact. II Peter 3:3-6.

Submitted by Max (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 15:41.

Simple question: Why would any Biblical Christian question God's Word, the Bible, and instead accept man's wavering explanations of the creation? When they question God's Word on creation, how can they be certain of ANY of God's Word, especially since Jesus Himself confirmed so much of the Old Testament creation information?

Submitted by Pete Downing (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 15:44.

Mr. Rothermel,

I fully agree that that's the key, that Creation is foundational to the whole faith. And the use of the term, "an uncertain trumpet" is a poetic warning that we, as teachers in school, CCD, or of our kids at home; must be aware of when imparting the faith. That compromising approach just widens the cracks in the creation vs. science debate. At the end of the day, I feel that Genesis answers more questions than does the struggle to accept some tenets of science in melding them with creation. That just doesn't work. Keep up the good and righteous work. We're all better for it.

Best regards,
Peter Downing

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-18 15:47.

I am not a blogger, but I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and sure will say AMEN to that.

THANK YOU! Yes! We do need to be reminded DAILY by the urging (in fact, the command) to "be ready ALWAYS to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness (not weakness) and fear" (1 Peter 3:15). God's Word is established on evidence that allows us to receive its authority as objectively PROVEN by fulfilled prophecy. It is the only Book in the world that authenticates its veracity with prewritten history, "declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done" (Isaiah 46:10) with 100% accuracy. Then God levels the playing field by saying: "Produce your cause, saith the LORD, bring for YOUR strong reasons.... Declare us things for to come" (Isaiah 41:21,22). The silence from the opposing camp is deafening. NOW then, since God has established His ability to tell it like it is in things that our finite minds cannot see (i.e., the unseen future), how is it that we question His ability to tell it like it is in things that relate to His creation (i.e., the unseen past)? Our Lord Jesus posed the question this way: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12). YES! The two are connected! Thank you for this blog!

Thank you so much for this reminder. It is good to know what probing questions to ask of those who would question our beliefs and to know where to turn to - God's Word.

Thanks.

Submitted by Carla Ward (not verified) on Sat, 2011-11-19 09:49.

I find it interesting that Albert Einstein once said that, "The purpose of science is to explain how God did it." Of course he was speaking primarily of his field of physics, but science has decided to explain how it happened without God. And that has no answer. Life does not fit nicely into an equation.

Submitted by Peter Cvek (not verified) on Fri, 2011-12-16 19:41.

Greetings from Australia... Richard's sentiments are quite true... The legacy of Vincent of Lerins, whose famous dictum basically enshrined the modern Augustinian doctrine of ecumenism, and fellowship amongst the various differing Christian denominations based upon the "least common denominators", ( the Gospel and good works) has seen the expulsion of the serious study and acceptance of the books of Moses and Joshua, particularly the book of Genesis, from Christendom's vocabulary.. " Union at all cost" is the present catchword, and anything that may impede such union is deemed as too "divisive" and too "fanatical", especially the Books of Moses and Joshua, and the testimony to Creation by Design and Geocentrism which these books unequivocally testify to and support... When we recall that Copernicus, who was a disciple of the pagan "father" of philosophy; Pythagoras, and the pseudo-Christian pseudo-scientists of the Renaissance such as Giordano Bruno, Marsilio Ficino, Galileo and other Neo-Platonists, were more interested in reviving Pythagoreanism philosophy than in following and affirming the "Faith as once given", and that their ultimate goal was the erosion of all popular confidence in the testimony of Scripture, so as to revive the paganism of Neoplatonism (which Darwin and Huxley also embraced), we then begin to realize that such erosion must commence at the beginning of the Bible itself, if it is to commence at all. Hence the onslaught against the book of Genesis and the writings of Moses and Joshua, for it is from their testimony that we acquire the first intimations of young-Cosmos/Earth Creationism and Geocentrism, and God's grand work of design in nature and man... The tapestry of Holy Scripture, from Genesis to the Apocalypse, must never be frayed or torn if our testimony is to remain true. Indeed, when a trumpet sounds, it is the book of Beginnings; the book of Genesis, that sounds first and lays the foundation for the others by dispelling and destroying the "wisdom of the wise ( philosophers) of this world" and by laying the axe to the tree of that "mystery of iniquity"; the great lie of Evolutionism and Copernicanism that is currently believed and taught by the entire world... The trumpet must sound certain, and our certainty is based on a sure foundation: the Holy Scripture that begins with Genesis, is fulfilled in the Gospels, and is completed by the Apocalypse...

From Peter Cvek, Australia.....

Submitted by JC (not verified) on Wed, 2012-06-06 18:13.

Knowing the Creator's word is accurate is foundational to all faith. Evolutionism is a false religion with no facts to back it up. All it has is theory — theory that changes frequently, trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion that it should have been thrown out long ago. But Christians have everything — a sure and certain promise that they will live in righteousness with their good and gracious King forever.

Submitted by April (not verified) on Thu, 2012-06-07 14:06.

I'd say that anyone who denies that Christ created all things, each after its own kind, just as Genesis indicates, isn't really Christian. Once you start importing secular lies and imposing them on the truth of the Bible, you've made nonsense of fact. You've shown your true colors — you're not a sheep, but a goat. You would deny the Lord himself, since you deny his word.

Anyone who really has sought after the Lord knows him ... that he is faithful and true. Those who prefer men's machinations to God's wisdom have chosen to wallow in ignorance.

Good luck pulling someone out of it, too. People can be very stubborn about their blasphemy. I recently had an argument with a supposed Christian who insisted Christ was not God and that the Bible was written by mere men, so it did not contain the word of the Lord and could be dismissed as a reliable source. Frankly, that's an atheist argument, so she has no business pretending to be Christian. (This, from someone who herself told me Jesus comforted her when her son died!) I told her she could not afford to be wrong about that, so she should seek out the God of glory by asking Jesus to help her understand who he was. Will she follow this simple and rewarding advice? No. It's been at least four years now that I've been trying to get her to read the Bible, and she just won't. For the past year I've been trying to get her to pray to the Lord and draw near to him, and she won't. (This, after she's had some serious health problems and she knows the Lord spared her life!)

Most people just don't really want to know Jesus. They just want to place him in a box and take him out now and then without even really looking at him. That way they can continue to live their life taking from him and never giving back.